Singapore Medical Council

Facts

Under s 45 of the Medical Registration Act 1997, a Complaints Committee investigating a doctor must finish its inquiry within three months, which the chairman of the Complaints Panel may extend by three more months. Any further extension needs an application by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to the High Court under s 45(4) read with s 59U.

In Originating Application No 708 of 2025, the SMC sought such an extension for an inquiry into a doctor. The time limit expired on 10 July 2025; the application was filed on 8 July 2025 and heard on 30 July 2025. The supporting affidavit described the alleged acts under investigation but not the misconduct being inquired into, and one paragraph appeared to contradict itself on whether the doctor had issued medical certificates. Only after conferring at the hearing did counsel explain that the doctor was being investigated for attending to an injured worker without promptly issuing a medical certificate, and later issuing six backdated certificates.

Issues

1. Whether the extension of time for the Complaints Committee's inquiry should be granted.
2. Whether the application and supporting affidavit were properly prepared and filed in time.

Holding

The court granted the extension of time sought by the SMC, while stating that the conduct of the proceedings had not been satisfactory.

Reasoning

The court repeated its earlier warning in Re Singapore Medical Council [2023] SGHC 212 that such applications must not be filed so close to expiry; if filing late was unavoidable, counsel had to seek an urgent hearing before the deadline, and it was for the SMC to brief its lawyers early. The time needed for an inquiry must be weighed against the public interest in resolving complaints quickly.

An application of this kind is judicial, not administrative, and an extension is not automatic. Even uncontested, counsel must prepare as for a contested hearing. The affidavit must set out the suspected misconduct, the facts supporting it, and why the inquiry could not be completed in time, rather than leaving counsel to supply facts from the Bar. The court noted that backdating alone might not be misconduct if there were good reasons. Once time lapses without an extension, the Committee is functus officio, and if the SMC could simply start a fresh inquiry the statutory scheme would be pointless, which could not be right.

From the judgment